title: Comparative evaluation of different pairs of DNA repair-deficient and DNA repair-proficient bacterial tester strains for rapid detection of chemical mutagens and carcinogens.
abstract: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of different pairs of DNA repair-deficient and DNA repair-proficient bacterial tester strains in a mutagenicity/carcinogenicity screen, possibly as complements to the Ames test. 70 carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds, representing a variety of chemical structures, were tested for their DNA-damaging effects, using 6 different DNA-repair-deficient bacterial strains. 2 Bacillus subtilis systems, H17/M45 and HLL3g/HJ-15, were used. The susceptibility of Escherichia coli AB1157 was compared with the susceptibility of 4 recombination-deficient mutants, JC5547, JC2921, JC2926 and JC5519. The test compounds were applied onto paper disks (spot test, ST), or incorporated into a top agar layer (agar-incorporation test, AT). The 2 B. subtilis systems were generally found to be more sensitive and reliable than the assays using E coli. The incorporation of the test compounds in the agar increased the sensitivity of the test for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other poorly water-soluble compounds. Hydrazines and several other highly polar chemicals could be tested more efficiently when applied onto paper disks. About 30% of the test compounds did not induce any growth inhibition and so could not be tested properly. In order to evaluate the ability of these DNA-repair tests to complement the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity test in a genetic toxicology screening program, results from this study were compared with published data both on mutagenicity in the Ames test and on carcinogenicity. 8 carcinogens generally found to be non-mutagenic for Salmonella were tested: 2 showed DNA-damaging properties (mitomycin C, 1,2-dimethylhydrazine), 5 failed to do so (actinomycin D, griseofulvin, thioacetamide, diethylstilbestrol, safrole), and one (thiourea) was not toxic, so that no classification was possible. 2 non-carcinogenic bacterial mutagens were examined; one, sodium azide, was equitoxic for repair-proficient and -deficient strains, while the other, nitrofurantoin, primarily inhibited repair-deficient strains. The DNA-repair tests failed to indicate the mutagenic and carcinogenic properties of acridine orange. Nalidixic acid, a non-mutagenic DNA synthesis inhibitor, damaged bacterial DNA. Apart from the differences summarized above, carcinogenicity was indicated correctly by the Salmonella S9 assay and most sets of DNA-repair-deficient and DNA-repair-proficient tester strains evaluated in this study. Thus, several more carcinogens could be detected by performing the Ames test and the bacterial DNA-repair tests in tandem than by using either test alone. Nevertheless, the use of both bacterial in vitro systems in a battery of short-term tests for mutagenicity/carcinogenicity evaluation is not considered to be ideal, since the Ames test and the pairs of DNA-repair-deficient and DNA-repair-proficient tester strains used had several shortcomings in common under the conditions of this study.
mesh_terms: D001412:Bacillus subtilis / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics; D002273:Carcinogens / Q000032:analysis*; D004260:DNA Repair; D004926:Escherichia coli / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics; D009152:Mutagenicity Tests / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D002273:Carcinogens